Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint relating to repairs and compensation for damage to a building owned by the complainant. The courts are best placed to decide such matters. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints about other related issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about issues arising from flood defence works carried out by the Environment Agency (EA). He says the EA has delayed answering questions and in resolving a dispute relating to damage to a building he owns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example:
5. we believe there is another body better placed to consider the complaint; or
6. the issues are closely related to matters we would not otherwise investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The EA carried out works to a building owned by Mr B as part of a flood defence scheme. He says this resulted in damage for which some compensation has been paid and repairs carried out. He says other repairs are outstanding and further compensation is pending the outcome of investigations in to the structural condition of the building.
9. Mr B’s complaint is mainly about decisions on compensation and repairs. These are matters best decided by the courts if Mr B and the EA cannot reach agreement.
10. Mr B has also suggested continuing responsibility for the condition of the building is unclear. This is also a matter for the courts to decide if Mr B and the EA cannot reach agreement. It is not something we can decide.
11. Mr B’s complaint is, in essence, that the EA has been negligent. Adjudication on negligence usually involves making decisions on contested questions of fact and law which need the more rigorous and structured procedures of civil litigation for their proper determination. In addition, only a court can decide if a body has been negligent and what damages must be paid.
12. We cannot decide whether a body has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. For this reason, we would usually expect someone in Mr B’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through his insurers.
13. We will not investigate other issues of process and service delivery related to matters best decided elsewhere.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because the courts are best placed to decide the central issues complained about. We cannot order the EA to carry out repairs or pay compensation, nor can we decide future liability for the condition of the building. We will not investigate other related issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman